Update March 20, 2024: Helpful content system integrated into central ranking systems.
The March 2024 core update was introduced alongside a spam update on March 5, 2024, and Google announced that the helpful content system is now part of Google’s core ranking systems. This means there will be no further helpful content updates (and the way the helpful content system works has changed).
Instead, multiple core systems assess the usefulness of content. The classifier that was used for previous helpful content updates (and that ran continuously) is essentially gone, replaced by multiple systems that rate the usefulness of content. You can read more about this on Google Blog post about the update and in the FAQ published by him about helpful content.
———
I’m going to flip the script on this post, something I rarely do. I’ll start with where I think the helpful content system can go from here, and then explain why (for those who want to better understand some background on Google’s penal algorithm updates).
Let’s go. I think Google’s helpful content system can go in a few different directions from here:
- Google could simply reduce the severity of the HCU classifier. It would still span the entire site, but the sites wouldn’t be dragged down as much. It would definitely get your attention, and maybe it’s just bad enough if you still want to make big changes from a content and UX perspective.
- Second, perhaps the helpful content system could become more detailed (like Penguin has done in the past). The classifier may be applied more heavily to pages that are deemed unhelpful, rather than downgraded across the entire site. Of course, this would give site owners a serious indication of what content is considered “unhelpful,” but it would also give spammers an indication of where the threshold lies (which could be one reason Google wouldn’t go down this route).
- Third, the helpful content system could remain as is in terms of severity, including functioning as a site-wide signal, but might be better suited to targeting large sites with pockets of unhelpful content. We know this is an issue for some powerful, larger websites, but these are not really affected by the various HCUs as much of their content would NOT be classified as “unhelpful”. So the massive declines that many smaller niche websites have experienced could also be seen in larger and more established websites if Google goes down this route.
- Fourth, Google may change the performance of the UX part of the HCU. It is possible that in the future the HCU may no longer be so sensitive to aggressive and disruptive advertising. Or on the other hand, maybe Google increases the severity and it becomes even more aggressive. In my September HCU(X) post, I reported on how Google integrated page experience into helpful content documentation in April 2023 (which is a preview of what we saw at September’s HCU). And many websites were attacked that had one combination of unhelpful content AND a terrible UX (often due to aggressive advertising). So in the future, Google could change the performance of the UX component at any time, which could have a big impact on websites with unhelpful content…
- And finally, Google could simply continue the helpful content system as it is now. I don’t think that will be the case given all the criticism Google will face over the HCU(X) in September, but it’s certainly possible. But if Google assumes, based on the massive amounts of data that Google analyzes over time, that search quality will be better with the helpful content system running as it is, then nothing will change. I do believe we will see changes with the next HCU, but this scenario is entirely possible.
Now if you want to learn why I think these are possible scenarios for the future of the helpful content system, you should read the rest of my post. I describe the evolution of Google’s penalty algorithm updates, which could help site owners affected by the various HCUs better understand why they were affected, how the previous systems have evolved over time, and what they will do in the future could expect.
The September HCU(X), pitchforks, torches and screaming carnage:
There were a lot of people complaining vehemently about Google’s helpful September content update, how badly their sites were affected, how no sites recovered from September’s HCU(X), and more. I completely understand your frustration, but I also think that many site owners need to learn more about the development of previous updates to Google’s penalty algorithm.
To clarify: there are algorithm updates that check for this support financially Websites and content and then algorithm updates looking for it degrade Websites and content. The end result of both types of systems might look similar (large drops), but there is a difference between the two. And based on how previous penalty algorithm updates have evolved over time, we might have some clues about how Google’s helpful content system might evolve, too.
Google’s helpful content system:
Before Google released its first helpful content update, I was able to get on the phone with Google’s Danny Sullivan to discuss the system, the classifier, and more. Danny explained that the system would evaluate all of a website’s content and that a classifier would be applied to the website if it felt the website had a significant amount of “unhelpful content.” And this classifier could drag down rankings across the entire site (and not just the unhelpful content). So it is a site-level classifier that could cause major problems in terms of ranking.
After hearing about HCU on that call, I said it could be like Google Panda on steroids. The first few HCUs didn’t result in widespread drops, but September’s HCU(X) did (and was Panda-like for many niche publishers). More about Panda soon.
So the helpful content system is a punitive System. It aims at punishment and degradation. I hate to say it this way, but that’s the truth.
A definition of punishment:
“Infliction or intention as punishment.”
And that’s exactly what Google’s HCU does. For those unfamiliar with the drops that many website owners experience after the disruption, here are just a few of them. It was disastrous for these websites:
Yes, it’s scary stuff. It’s worth noting that I documented over 700 websites that were heavily impacted by the various HCUs and most are, in my opinion, smaller niche sites. For example, several thousand pages are indexed from a few hundred pages. These are often small websites that focus on a very specific topic. Google’s helpful content system placed the classifier on these sites after evaluating all the content on each site and ranking it as a significant amount that this content is “not helpful” (or written for search versus human search).
Recovery from HCU:
From a recovery perspective from the beginning Google explained that it would be neither easy nor fast. For example, on the call with me in August 2022, Google explained that websites would have to demonstrate that they had significantly improved their content to be helpful and written for people to recover. Additionally, Google would need to see these changes over months before a site could recover. I know there’s been some confusion lately about how long it takes to restore, but Google has stated “months” not “weeks” since the beginning.
This is why, in my opinion, no one can find a single site that has recovered from HCU in September 2023. It’s just too early. For example, even if a site has made significant changes and those changes were implemented in November or December, we are only a few months away from implementing those changes. In my opinion that is simply not enough time.
There have been some recoveries from previous HCUs, but these are rare. When checking many websites that were affected by the HCUs in August or December 2022, it turns out that not many have improved in terms of content. So this could be a big reason why many sites affected by previous HCUs have not recovered. And to be honest, I’m sure Google would be happy if site owners created these sites for search traffic (and monetization) and not for supporting people. This is exactly why the helpful content system was created. Remember, it’s a Penalty algorithm update. It demotes, not promotes.
When Google needs to address a major problem in the SERPs, it becomes PUNITIVE.
As I spoke with website owners who were heavily impacted by HCU, I found that some were unfamiliar with previous Google algorithm updates that also included punitive measures. And after explaining the development of these previous penalty algorithm updates, why they were created, how they worked, and more, these site owners seemed to have a better overall understanding of the helpful content system.
Over time, if Google identifies a major issue that is negatively impacting the quality of search results, it may create algorithm updates that address that specific issue. The HCU is no different. Below I’ll discuss some of the more popular systems that were punitive (punishing sites rather than promoting them).
First, a note about algorithm updates that reward or demote:
I work a lot with site owners who have been heavily impacted by major core updates. If a site is negatively impacted by a major core update, this can be extreme for some sites (some will see performance drop by more than 60% when the update is rolled out). However, it is important to note that comprehensive core updates aim to provide content of the highest quality and relevance. It’s not about punishing sites, it’s about rewarding them (although it can seem like punishment if you end up on the wrong page for a core update).
The good news is that if you were severely affected by a major core update due to quality issues, you can definitely recover. For example, if a website’s quality has improved significantly over time, it may see improvements in subsequent major core updates. It’s also worth mentioning that Google’s Paul Haahr explained to me at the 2019 Webmaster Conference that Google can always decouple algorithms from major core updates and run them separately. We’ve experienced this several times in recent years, but also here with websites typically You will need another core update before the recovery becomes visible.
And then there’s Google’s Rating system. This also promotes and does not degrade. But again, if you’re on the wrong side of the update, it can seem like a severe punishment. Many companies have reached out to me after being wiped out by a review update. You can read my post about the long-term impact of the rating system to learn more about how many sites have performed since these updates were introduced. Hint, it’s not pretty…
Additionally, the rating system is now being “regularly and continually improved” since the November 2023 rating update. As a result, Google will no longer announce specific reviews updates. That was a big change with the November 2023 Reviews Update (which may be the last official update we hear of). The move reminded me of how Panda was integrated into Google’s core ranking algorithm in 2016 and never heard from again. I’ll share more about Panda soon.
Now I’ll address some previous algorithm updates that were punishing. And if you’re affected by an HCU, certain aspects of each update may sound very familiar.
Google Penguin:
In 2012, Google finally had enough of websites pushing their way to the top of search results via unnatural links. The PageRank game was crazy until 2012 and Google had to do something about it. That’s why the Penguin algorithm was developed, which heavily downgraded websites that spammed Google with unnatural links. It was a site-level downgrade that caused many sites to drop in rankings. Many website owners had to go out of business after being affected by Penguin. It was definitely a nasty algorithm update.
And just like HCU, Penguin’s declines were extreme. Some websites crashed 80-90% overnight and had to figure out what to do. You can read my post about the results of Penguin 1.0 after I delve deeper into the affected sites. It didn’t take long to figure out what was important. The affected websites’ link profiles were filled with spammy exact match and rich anchor text links. And when I say filled, I mean FILLED.
Here is an example of a penguin victim’s anchor text distribution from the period. It’s completely unnatural:
I have received lots of calls from website owners completely freaking out after being hit. In one of the most memorable calls, a website owner frantically asked me to look into the situation for him. I quickly asked for the domain name so I could check the link profile. He said, “What does that mean? I have 400 websites I need you to check.” Yes, he had sent 400 one-page websites to hell with spam links, all ranking at the top of the search results and many linked to each other. With this setup he was earning a good amount per month which dropped to almost $0 overnight. Penguin 1.0 was a very bad day for his company.
Here’s a drop from Penguin 1.0. Here too, the declines were extreme, just like at the HCU:
And here is a drop from Penguin 2.1. Search visibility will drop when the update rolls out:
As far as recovery goes, there hasn’t been much over time. Sounds a lot like HCU, right? Why weren’t there many recoveries? If most of a site’s links were spam, it would be difficult to remove all of those links, and even if you did, there would only be a handful of links left that actually mattered. The disavow tool has not been released until October 2012As a result, website owners previously affected by Penguin desperately tried to remove spam links, unfollow them, or, in the worst case, remove the pages of their websites that received these links. It was a complete mess.
So anyone complaining about the HCU should know that Penguin wasn’t much better. It was punitive and punished many website owners for manipulating Google’s algorithms. Google didn’t care if these sites recovered quickly. In fact, Penguin updates were often so far apart that it was clear Google didn’t care at all. There were almost two years between Penguin 3.1 and 4. Yes, almost two years. Additionally, Penguin didn’t run continuously until December 2014, so you’d need another Penguin update to recover by then. And again, most people didn’t recover from the blow.
The whole situation got so bad that Google decided to turn Penguin on its head and simply devalue spam links instead of penalizing them. That’s what Penguin 4.0 was all about thatand it was an important day in Penguin’s development. And soon after, penguin suppression could be seen in many locations. It was pretty wild to see. By the way, if I remember correctly, Google’s Gary Illyes was instrumental in the move to Penguin 4.0 (devaluation versus punishment). I’m not sure I think he got enough credit for that.
Here’s a tweet from me showing search visibility changes based on the introduction of Penguin 4.0:
So Penguin was a nasty and punitive algorithm update that caused a lot of problems for affected website owners. It has put many websites out of business, although it has significantly improved the unnatural link situation. So I suspect Google saw it as successful. And this move towards devaluation rather than punishment has resulted in SpamBrain now processing unnatural links (ignoring junk spam links across the web). This is one of the reasons I have been so vocal about the need for 99.99% of website owners to disavow links (unless they knowingly established unnatural links, paid for links, or were part of a linking program). If not, let SpamBrain do its thing and forgo the disavow tool.
The evolution of the penguin:
- Punitive algorithm that severely downgraded websites that played unnatural links.
- First it was switched to continuous operation after a periodic update was required (which could take quite a long time, even years).
- In 2016, move to devaluing rather than penalizing links with Penguin 4.0 (a huge shift in the way Penguin works).
- Google has retired the Penguin system and I assume parts of it have been integrated into SpamBrain, which now deals with unnatural links (by neutralizing them).
Google Panda:
Before Google Penguin came along, Panda was the big algorithm update that everyone was talking about. Launched in February 2011, its goal was to demote websites with a lot of thin and low-quality content. The algorithm was developed based on a growing problem driven by content farms. Many websites delivered a lot of extremely low-quality and thin content that ended up ranking well. And beyond the thin content, these sites were often littered with a ton of advertising. Or worse, the articles were spread across 30 paginated pages full of advertisements.
Google knew something had to be done. And Panda was born. Here is a quote from the original blog post Algorithm update announcement:
“This update is intended to reduce the ranking of low-quality sites – sites that provide little value to users, copy content from other sites, or sites that are simply not very useful.”
I was able to jump right into Panda analysis because one of my new publishing clients had 60 websites worldwide at the time (and about 30 of them were hit hard by the first Panda update). I discovered all kinds of low-quality and thin content on these sites and forwarded the results to my client at a rapid pace.
Here’s an example of a big panda hit. This website dropped by about 60% overnight…
Although the Panda hits could be huge, the good news was that Panda updates were typically released every 6 to 8 weeks (and you technically had the option to restore with each subsequent update if you had enough for the restoration). I’ve helped many companies in many industries recover from the Panda updates over time. So even though Panda was a punishing algorithm update, many sites recovered when they implemented the right changes to significantly improve quality over time.
Here’s an example of a big panda recovery: The site is growing after working hard to improve the quality over time. So recovery was definitely possible.
This is different from HCU (at least so far), but again, many of the websites affected by HCU were smaller niche sites. They don’t have a lot of content overall and in my opinion many need to completely overhaul their content, user experience, reduce aggressive advertising, etc.
Panda finally changed in 2013 and initially began rolling out monthly, slowly over a ten-day period. This suggested that more major changes were coming, and that finally happened in 2016, when Panda was integrated into Google’s core ranking algorithm and never resurfaced. I’m sure parts of Panda are now part of Google’s major core updates, but Medieval Panda is no longer on the web (in its pre-2013 form). Also, and this was interesting to learn, HJ Kim from Google explained this to Barry Schwartz The panda evolved into a coati at some point (and is part Google’s central ranking algorithm). By the way, Danny Goodwin I published a great post We’re looking back at Panda (as we’ve just passed 13 years since its launch).
Panda’s evolution:
- Penalty algorithm that could severely downgrade websites with a lot of low-quality or thin content.
- In 2013, the rollout happened monthly and slowly over a 10-day period.
- Panda was finally integrated into Google’s core ranking algorithm in 2016 and never appeared again.
- Panda evolved into Coati in January 2016 and is still part of Google’s core ranking algorithm (although it’s not what the medieval Panda used to look like).
- Google has discontinued the Panda system and processes low-quality content in other ways (one of which is the helpful content system).
Back to the helpful content system: Where could we go from here?
OK, I started the post with where I thought the helpful content system could go from here, then I covered penalty algorithm updates, and now I’m coming back to the helpful content system. Now that you know more about why Google sometimes needs to take punitive actions and how the company has done so in the past, let’s take another look at the original bullet points.
In my opinion, there are a few scenarios here that show where the helpful content system can go from here. I’ll just provide the bullet points from the beginning of this article:
- Google could simply reduce the severity of the HCU classifier. It would still span the entire site, but the sites wouldn’t be dragged down as much. It would definitely get your attention, and maybe it’s just bad enough if you still want to make big changes from a content and UX perspective.
- Second, perhaps the helpful content system could become more detailed (like Penguin has done in the past). The classifier may be applied more heavily to pages that are deemed unhelpful, rather than downgraded across the entire site. Of course, this would give site owners a serious indication of what content is considered “unhelpful,” but it would also give spammers an indication of where the threshold lies (which could be one reason Google wouldn’t go down this route).
- Third, the helpful content system could remain as is in terms of severity, including functioning as a site-wide signal, but might be better suited to targeting large sites with pockets of unhelpful content. We know this is an issue for some powerful, larger websites, but these are not really affected by the various HCUs as much of their content would NOT be classified as “unhelpful”. So the massive declines that many smaller niche websites have experienced could also be seen in larger and more established websites if Google goes down this route.
- Fourth, Google may change the performance of the UX part of the HCU. It is possible that in the future the HCU may no longer be so sensitive to aggressive and disruptive advertising. Or on the other hand, maybe Google increases the severity and it becomes even more aggressive. In my September HCU(X) post, I reported on how Google integrated page experience into helpful content documentation in April 2023 (which is a preview of what we saw at September’s HCU). And many websites were attacked that had one combination of unhelpful content AND a terrible UX (often due to aggressive advertising). So in the future, Google could change the performance of the UX component at any time, which could have a big impact on websites with unhelpful content…
- And finally, Google could simply continue the helpful content system as it is now. I don’t think that will be the case given all the criticism Google will face over the HCU(X) in September, but it’s certainly possible. But if Google assumes, based on the massive amounts of data that Google analyzes over time, that search quality will be better with the helpful content system running as it is, then nothing will change. I do believe we will see changes with the next HCU, but this scenario is entirely possible.
What changes will the next HCU bring with it? Only Google knows…
We expect another helpful content update (HCU) soon. Therefore, it will be interesting to see what the impact will be, how many sites will be restored, whether larger sites will be affected, and more. Again, there are many websites that were affected by previous HCUs and are seeking recovery, so many are eagerly awaiting the next update. Then site owners will learn whether they have done enough to recover or whether a system refinement will allow them to recover. I’ll take a closer look, that’s for sure.
GG